Immunophenotyping of Peripheral Blood, Lymph Node, and Bone Marrow T Lymphocytes During Canine Leishmaniosis and the Impact of Antileishmanial Chemotherapy

Memory T cells: promising biomarkers for evaluating protection and vaccine efficacy against leishmaniasis

Understanding the immune response to Leishmania infection and identifying biomarkers that correlate with protection are crucial for developing effective vaccines. One intriguing aspect of Leishmania infection is the persistence of parasites, even after apparent lesion healing. Various host cells, including dendritic cells, fibroblasts, and Langerhans cells, may serve as safe sites for latent infection. Memory T cells, especially tissue-resident memory T cells (TRM), play a crucial role in concomitant immunity against cutaneous Leishmania infections. These TRM cells are long-lasting and can protect against reinfection in the absence of persistent parasites. CD4+ TRM cells, in particular, have been implicated in protection against Leishmania infections. These cells are characterized by their ability to reside in the skin and rapidly respond to secondary infections by producing cytokines such as IFN-γ, which activates macrophages to kill parasites. The induction of CD4+ TRM cells has shown promise in experimental immunization, leading to protection against Leishmania challenge infections. Identifying biomarkers of protection is a critical step in vaccine development and CD4+ TRM cells hold potential as biomarkers, as their presence and functions may correlate with protection. While recent studies have shown that Leishmania-specific memory CD4+ T-cell subsets are present in individuals with a history of cutaneous leishmaniasis, further studies are needed to characterize CD4+ TRM cell populations. Overall, this review highlights the importance of memory T cells, particularly skin-resident CD4+ TRM cells, as promising targets for developing effective vaccines against leishmaniasis and as biomarkers of immune protection to assess the efficacy of candidate vaccines against human leishmaniasis.

Field-Deployable Treatments For Leishmaniasis: Intrinsic Challenges, Recent Developments and Next Steps

Leishmaniasis is a neglected tropical disease endemic primarily to low- and middle-income countries, for which there has been inadequate development of affordable, safe, and efficacious therapies. Clinical manifestations of leishmaniasis range from self-healing skin lesions to lethal visceral infection with chances of relapse. Although treatments are available, secondary effects limit their use outside the clinic and negatively impact the quality of life of patients in endemic areas. Other non-medicinal treatments, such as thermotherapies, are limited to use in patients with cutaneous leishmaniasis but not with visceral infection. Recent studies shed light to mechanisms through which Leishmania can persist by hiding in cellular safe havens, even after chemotherapies. This review focuses on exploring the cellular niches that Leishmania parasites may be leveraging to persist within the host. Also, the cellular, metabolic, and molecular implications of Leishmania infection and how those could be targeted for therapeutic purposes are discussed. Other therapies, such as those developed against cancer or for manipulation of the ferroptosis pathway, are proposed as possible treatments against leishmaniasis due to their mechanisms of action. In particular, treatments that target hematopoietic stem cells and monocytes, which have recently been found to be necessary components to sustain the infection and provide a safe niche for the parasites are discussed in this review as potential field-deployable treatments against leishmaniasis.

Dogs with leishmaniosis: how are we managing proteinuria in daily practice? A Portuguese questionnaire-based study

Background

Proteinuria is a common finding in dogs with leishmaniosis. Although antileishmanial therapeutic protocols are widely implemented, little information is available on which treatments are most adequate for identifying proteinuria in patients with canine leishmaniosis (CanL), especially regarding the use of immunosuppressants. The aim of this study was to explore the current paradigm regarding the antiproteinuric approach adopted by veterinary practitioners in Portugal to treat dogs with CanL.

Methods

A questionnaire-based study was developed using Google Forms®. The questionnaire presented a number of different hypothetical scenarios of CanL, and the topics surveyed included the general features of the respondents and the protocols preferred by these respondents to manage proteinuria in the presented scenarios, including choice of therapeutic drugs, appropriate diet and use of immunosuppressants, in dogs with immune-mediated glomerulonephritis. The questionnaire was internally prevalidated and diffused online over a 2-month period through Portuguese veterinary social networking groups, and data were collected for descriptive analysis.

Results

A total of 86 veterinary practitioners responded to the survey. When exposed to theoretical scenarios of proteinuria in dogs with CanL at stages IIb, III and IV (LeishVet guidelines), 16.3%, 62.8% and 93.8% of the respondents, respectively, answered that they would treat it. The dog was started on a renal diet as therapy by 28.6%, 83.3% and 97.4% of respondents, respectively. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) were prescribed by 100%, 85.2% and 78.9% of respondents as first-choice drugs for CanL at stages IIb, III and IV, respectively, with ACEI used in monotherapy by 64.3%, 40.7% and 46.1%. In comparison, protocols using ACEI in combination with other compounds were chosen by 7.1%, 33.3% and 39.5% of respondents, and combination therapy which did not include ACEI was the choice of 0.0%, 12.9% and 14.5%. Regarding immunosuppressants, 44.2% of the respondents answered they would prescribe them, with 97.4% electing for prednisolone and 5.3% choosing mycophenolate mofetil.

Conclusions

Among the veterinary practitioners who responded, proteinuria treatment was considered since stage IIb CanL, although implementation of a therapeutic approach was more evident in advanced CanL stages. ACEI were the first-choice drugs, particularly for the treatment of stage IIb CanL; in advanced stages, a combination of antiproteinuric drugs was more often used. Immunosuppressant use was controversial, although when applied, prednisolone was the preferred choice. These findings reinforce the small body of evidence that supports the use of such drugs and the need to further explore their role in CanL.

Graphical Abstract

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13071-022-05222-w.